Is it not characteristic in your
style of bleating at others and insulting others with your own
degrading sexual fetish ?
Still sniffing at others ?
It takes a pure dickhead to believe only in his own actions and
sound that no one else can imitate any better.
Fingolfin_Noldor's piece has clearly outlined the cause of the
present sub-prime crisis - and so have your own referenced articles
that you have so intelligently produced but somehow not reflected
in your own interpretation of the issues printed.
You seem to be the type that is grabbed by the sensational
headlines, but not caring enough to pick-up the details.
Is it any wonder that you will charge into a pile and sniff at
everything without any ability to discern the roughage from the
refined items ?
Is this due to your uncontrollable anxiety to reach orgasmic
ecstasy of victory over everything - and causing you to constantly
have premature celebratory ejaculation of false joy ?
Your first referenced site was taken from a Christian Newsletter of
some kind - how much have you understand from this article, besides
being grabbed by its sensational headline ''Financial advisor: Americans spending more than
the last dollar'' ?
How do you intend to tie the above with your second referenced
site, with another sensational headline - ''A day of reckoning for Americans who lived beyond
their means'' ?
From the above two referenced sites given, how have you made it
relevant to this debate of sub-prime with your understanding of the
materials printed in your third referenced site - with another
sensational headline - ''Our Savings Rate Is (Still) Negative: Should We
Worry?'' ?
Your 'brilliant reading' led you to lock yourself into a fixated
view that subprime is all due to overspending - as so fervently
preached from the Christian viewpoint that ''Americans spending more than the
last dollar''.
Did you read from your second referenced site the following
-
''given that overinvestment in
the 1990s was part of the problem underpinning the recession, lower
interest rates did not stimulate much investment. The economy grew,
but mainly because American families were persuaded to take on more
debt, refinancing their mortgages and spending some of the
proceeds. And, as long as
housing prices rose as a result of lower interest rates,
Americans could ignore
their growing indebtedness.
Even this did not stimulate the economy enough. To get more people
to borrow more money, credit standards were lowered, fueling growth
in so-called "sub?prime" mortgages. Moreover, new products
were invented, which lowered upfront payments, making it easier for
individuals to take bigger mortgages.
Some mortgages even had negative amortization: payments did not
cover the interest due, so every month the debt grew more.
Fixed mortgages, with interest rates at 6 percent, were
replaced with variable-rate mortgages, whose interest payments were
tied to the lower short-term T-bill rates.''
From your third reference site taken
from an individual's blog - with his financial expertise unknown-
it had this headline : ''Our Savings Rate Is (Still) Negative: Should We
Worry? - did you not link the three together
?
''The problem with this data is
that it doesnt separate out the very rich and the poor, and thus
really reflect how the majority of people are doing. Even though
the net worth numbers make things look better, the top 20% of
households by wealth have 15 times the net worth of the median
household.
The top 20% by
income make 50% of the total income. Only half of
Americans even own stock, let alone have capital gains to worry
about. What would happen to these charts if you took out the top
20% richest people? Are the big earners also the big spenders? Or
are the lower 80%
of people both spending too much and not seeing any gains in net
worth? ''
All your three referenced site
besides telling of Americans spending more than they have - also
confirmed the preamble of the sub-prime problem which began with
the heavy borrowings, and with [i]''new products were
invented, which lowered upfront payments, making it easier for
individuals to take bigger mortgages''; and
confirming that only the ''.. top 20% by income make 50% of
the total income'' - which leaves the bottom
80% being the ones linked to the problems, with this 80% having the
worst credit
record holding the bulk of all the financial
borrowings - as illustrated in my own previous reference given
:
''Subprime lending refers to loans to people who
have poor credit
histories and low incomes. These
high-risk housing mortgages thus come at high interest rates. Over
time, these mortgages have come to be bundled into other forms of
securities and sold in the global credit
markets.''
The sub-prime issue is about
mortgages due to low interest packages designed by the Bank for
anyone to borrow without checks made; and the situation encouraged
by the poor monitoring from the Regulators.
Is Fingolfin_Noldor post not the same but making it clearer from
his own first hand knowledge being a resident in the US ?
Did you celebrate too early again ? Another impotent premature
ejaculation of your emotions ?
